Pages

Friday, July 18, 2008

The Grounds For Rationality

In comments on an earlier post, I made the point that theism holds the grounds to rationality. Paul C disagreed, and after giving links to some of the various posts I’ve written on logic (especially this one), I asked him to provide an atheistic backing for rationality. Paul’s response was:

1. Things are generally as I perceive them.2. At my level of perception, the universe appears orderly.3. If the universe is sufficiently orderly, then rationality is a useful tool.

There are several problems with this (I won’t be too nitpicky since Paul probably hasn’t taken much time to work on this, seeing as how it was a quick response in a comment field). Let us just examine his first premise.

It is impossible for us to know that things actually are as we perceive them to be. All we have is our perceptions. We do not have access to an unfiltered reality. That is, no matter what the objective universe is, we only perceive it filtered through the lens of our perceptions. So what Paul’s first premise boils down to is a simple faith statement. He believes that reality is generally how it is perceived.

Now I should point out that I agree with this premise. However, I have a reason for agreeing with it—a reason that Paul cannot have. My reason for agreeing with it is because God created the universe and He likewise created us to experience that universe, therefore He created us with the ability to perceive the universe as it actually is. Only because of sin do we sometimes err in our perceptions (and by this I include such things as degenerative eyesight and hearing, which would not have occurred without sin, not simply hallucinations brought about by such diseases as schizophrenia, etc.). But while this would also be an interesting path to go down, Paul inadvertently leads us directly back to the argument I made in the blog post I referenced earlier. Paul’s first premise, you see, is based on perception.

In the blog post I wrote (and referenced for Paul, but which I suspect he didn’t read), I stated:

I perceive, therefore I am. Even if I am nothing but a brain-in-a-vat—or even if I have no “brain” at all, it’s all simply mental hallucinations with no actual physical reality—I cannot doubt that I exist. I perceive things. Regardless of whether these things are real or not, perception occurs. Something perceives, and therefore there must be a “perceiving being.” Since these perceptions are “owned” by me, I am this perceiving being (by definition). I exist.

Now this doesn’t tell me that I exist physically, or that anything I perceive is real or not; but it does tell me that I do, actually, without a doubt, exist. I am whatever I am (as yet, undefined). I have identity. A is A (or in this case, I am me).

And if I exist, then it is the case that I do exist and do not non-exist at the same time and in the same relationship. If I exist (in whatever form I exist), I really do exist (in whatever form that may be), and the contradiction of this is not the case. Thus, my bare existence alone requires the law of Non-Contradiction.

Since I exist, logic must be valid.

So you see that both Paul and I start with perception; however, Paul’s argument requires us to accept our perceptions as valid, whereas my argument is correct regardless of whether our perceptions are valid.

Furthermore, (as I wrote in my original post), this leads to other important facts about existence. As I wrote then:

And since logic is valid, we can use logic to probe some other questions. For instance, have I always been here? It is possible that I am the only being that has ever existed, despite my perception of other beings. I do not have the self-awareness with these other beings that I do with my self; therefore, I cannot “prove” they exist in the same manner that I can “prove” I exist. So it is possible they do not exist at all and I am the only thing that exists.

But it is also possible that I have come from something else. After all, I perceive a world that functions in a specific manner, and if my perceptions are accurate then this means that I have come from my parents.

But where did they come from? Perhaps they’ve always been here; perhaps they had parents too. And if they had parents, their parents may have had parents too. This chain can go back for a very long time.

But it cannot be infinite. At some point, something must have existed without being derived from previous existence—otherwise, we are stuck in an infinite regress with no chance of ever escaping to begin logic in the first place. Thus, the fact that I exist demands that somewhere there must be a self-existent being.

I might be that self-existent being, of course. So, too, could my parents, etc. But whatever the case may be, logic requires that whatever or whoever the self-existent being is must be the cause of my own being. If it were not the cause of my own being, my being would never existed (for we would be back to the infinite regress).

So, the fact that I exit proves the necessity of some object with self-existence that caused my existence. This object could not have been created by anything else (for the same reasons of the infinite regress). The "first" object to ever exist must be self-existent.

If an object is self-existent, it is a necessary object. It holds the power of its own existence, and therefore nothing can keep it from existing. If nothing can keep it from existing, then it always has existed.

Some problems arise when we include time. After all, time is measured by physical objects that move. Thus, one pendulum swing on a clock = one second. One rotation of the Earth = 1 day. Etc. These physical processes define the length of time.

But we’ve already shown that a necessary, self-existent object must always exist. If this is the case and if that object is physical, then we have an actual infinite of time. If time extends an eternity backwards, it would take an eternity for the past to have gotten here. Thus we must conclude that time isn’t eternal, but instead it must have begun at some point.

So how do we reconcile this apparent tension of an eternal self-existent object in a temporal time frame? Logically, this is satisfied by either jettisoning our definition of time (in which case we have no meaningful way to speak of time) or by acknowledging that the self-existent necessary object is immaterial. Since time is measured by physical objects, an immaterial object would not cause time to exist co-eternally with itself. This immaterial object must still exist in such a way as to provide the basis for my own existence, however. (After all, remember that the self-existent object is a logically necessary requirement due to my own existence.) Thus, in order to stay rational, we must acknowledge an immaterial self-existent necessary object that can cause my own existence.

It is important to note that due to the necessity of the immaterial aspect of this object, it is impossible for secular science to speak meaningfully about this object. If science is limited to the physical world only, then science cannot speak to this. As such, we have demonstrated a necessary being that extends beyond the limits of science. Thus, the fact of my existence proves that science cannot answer the questions of something that necessarily must be true!

Other attributes can be logically deduced from this same being. For instance, omnipresence (all existence derived from this self-existent source must come from this self-existent source, so the source must be omnipresent--there is no existence outside of the existence of this self-existent [object]); omnipotence (all power is derived from existence, so all power flows from the self-existent source—without that source, there is no power); and immutability (since logic is immutable, the source of logic must be unchanging as well).

Thus far, the only real difference between this object and God Himself is that we’ve yet to prove any kind of consciousness in this object. But that too is simple enough to deduce. After all, this entire time we’ve been using logic. Logic works because existence is based on laws, and laws imply a law giver.

Why is it that “nature” acts the way it does? We can give a list of reasons, but these reasons are likewise subject to the same question: Why do these reasons act the way they do? Once more, we cannot engage in an infinite regress here. At some point we must reach the level where we are left saying, “That’s simply the way it is.”

And at that level, laws will still exist. And again, laws imply law givers, so the very aspect of the “law-giving” (i.e. the consciousness) must be necessarily basic to this object as well. This law giver must be the same self-existent, immutable, omnipresent, omnipotent, atemporal being I have already demonstrated must exist. This being fits the definition of “God.”

But even if someone does not like the above, we can always turn the tables and use some empirical evidence (which, following induction, cannot be known for “certain”). Assuming that our perceptions are valid, that we see the world as it really exists, etc. we know the following. All consciousness we have ever observed has come from previous consciousness. There is no evidence that consciousness can come from non-consciousness. Since I am conscious, whatever the source of my being is would logically be conscious as well, for we have no warrant to believe consciousness could have ever come from non-consciousness--there is no proof, no evidence, no observation of this ever.

Now all of this follows regardless of whether we agree that our perceptions are valid. This means that even if we grant the entirety of Paul’s first premise and agree that our perceptions really do accurately represent reality, then the above follows. That is, the existence of anything necessitates the existence of something that is self-existent, eternal, omnipresent, etc. In other words, all the attributes that we commonly ascribe to God.

Thus, as soon as Paul uses his first premise, he is granting to the theist that God really does exist.

Now that I’ve demonstrated this for Paul once again, I would be happy to allow him to try again at demonstrating how rationality can occur without the existence of some kind of diety…

I did read the post that you linked to. I appreciate the time and effort that you put into this, but your entire argument is neither rigorous or convincing.

So what Paul’s first premise boils down to is a simple faith statement. He believes that reality is generally how it is perceived.

I would prefer to call it an assumption rather than a faith statement. However it has more force than a faith statement, because even if this assumption is false one will always behave as if it's true since there is no alternative.

However, I have a reason for agreeing with it—a reason that Paul cannot have. My reason for agreeing with it is because God created the universe and He likewise created us to experience that universe, therefore He created us with the ability to perceive the universe as it actually is.

This is the important point in this comment. This is of course false. You could not possibly know that the universe even existed without first using your perceptions, so you must have also made the assumption prior to coming to your belief that God created the universe.

A few other flaws in your reasoning:

But it cannot be infinite. At some point, something must have existed without being derived from previous existence—otherwise, we are stuck in an infinite regress with no chance of ever escaping to begin logic in the first place. Thus, the fact that I exist demands that somewhere there must be a self-existent being.

This is a series of unfounded assertions. There is no reason why we might not be stuck in an infinite regress; or that an infinite regress would in any way prevent logic; or that your existence demands a self-existent being.

Thus, in order to stay rational, we must acknowledge an immaterial self-existent necessary object that can cause my own existence.

Your proposed "object" only provides a post hoc explanation; even if that explanation proves false, we would still be rational; and thus that "object" is not in fact necessary for us to stay rational.

Logic works because existence is based on laws, and laws imply a law giver.

This is merely a semantic implication and not a logical implication. I urge you not to be held hostage by the language that you use. There is no reason why laws might not simply be a question of accumulating probabilities, or emergent properties of physical matter.

All consciousness we have ever observed has come from previous consciousness. There is no evidence that consciousness can come from non-consciousness.

Before I was born I was not conscious. My consciousness was not transferred from either of my parents or from anything else; it appears to be an emergent property of my physical pattern. This is evidence that consciousness comes from non-consciousness.

Thus, as soon as Paul uses his first premise, he is granting to the theist that God really does exist.

No, I am unfortunately not. I realise that you think your argument is unassailable, but it really isn't. I'm not just saying that because I'm not the same religion as you, but you probably won't believe that.

Bottom line: you don't need any grounds for rationality other than assuming that the world is generally as you perceive it.

Paul said:---This is the important point in this comment. This is of course false. You could not possibly know that the universe even existed without first using your perceptions, so you must have also made the assumption prior to coming to your belief that God created the universe.---

How is this a fatal flaw in my argument? Isn't this the very foundation of my argument? Indeed, is it not my first premise?

My argument did not start with: "God exists." It started with "I perceive, therefore I am."

And I moved from there to establish that my existence alone is sufficent to account for the base laws of logic, which therefore give me warrant to use those laws to further probe existence itself.

Finally, your argument doesn't make any sense at all. It would be like someone going into a crime scene and saying, "This person was murdered" and you responding, "You wouldn't know they were murdered unless there was a dead body first." Well, duh. You have to have a dead body before you can say that the death was caused by murder; and you have to have perceptions before you can say something caused those perceptions. How is this, exactly, a problem?

Paul said:---There is no reason why we might not be stuck in an infinite regress; or that an infinite regress would in any way prevent logic; or that your existence demands a self-existent being.---

That is exactly wrong. Reason itself requires that we not be in an infinite regress. Infinite regresses are, by nature, irrational.

If you must retreat to an irrational argument, then you ought to have no qualms with my suggesting that atheism is irrational...

Paul said:---Your proposed "object" only provides a post hoc explanation; even if that explanation proves false, we would still be rational; and thus that "object" is not in fact necessary for us to stay rational.---

Not at all, because if that object does not exist then we are in an infinite regress. Now we certainly may be mistaken as to the identity of that object, but that object must still exist. Thus, your view would be correct if my argument relied on our correctly identifying that object; but it is not important who or what that object is rather than the fact that that object must exist.

Paul said:---This is merely a semantic implication and not a logical implication. I urge you not to be held hostage by the language that you use. There is no reason why laws might not simply be a question of accumulating probabilities, or emergent properties of physical matter.---

A) I anticiapted your responding in this very manner and already dealt with it.

B) It is you who are dealing trickerly with semantics here. There's a reason the regularities that occur in nature were given the title "Natural law." There's a reason that the word law fits.

Paul said:---Before I was born I was not conscious. My consciousness was not transferred from either of my parents or from anything else; it appears to be an emergent property of my physical pattern. This is evidence that consciousness comes from non-consciousness.---

Not at all. You mother was a conscious being. All beings that have consciousness come from other beings that have consciousness. There are no instances where we have consciousness coming from non-consciousness (examples: mixing a few chemicals together in a testtube and having the result think...and even that would require someone with consciousness to set the experiment up in the first place).

Paul said:---Bottom line: you don't need any grounds for rationality other than assuming that the world is generally as you perceive it.---

Except as I've demonstrated, my argument would work even if the world is exactly opposite of how we perceive it. It would work if we were all brains in a vat or stuck in the Matrix. It doesn't matter what is perceived, and it doesn't matter how close to reality those perceptions are; it only matters that perceptions occur. Everything else logically follows from there, and what logically follows is again a being that is omnipotent, omnipresent, self-existent, etc.

How is this a fatal flaw in my argument? Isn't this the very foundation of my argument? Indeed, is it not my first premise?

No, it isn't. According to what you've written in this thread, your first premise is:

"Things are generally as I perceive them because God created the universe and He likewise created us to experience that universe, therefore He created us with the ability to perceive the universe as it actually is."

It should be obvious that this is not the same as my first premise at all. As I have pointed out, your premise is circular, since you could not know the universe existed without assuming that your perceptions were accurate to begin with.

Finally, your argument doesn't make any sense at all. It would be like someone going into a crime scene and saying, "This person was murdered" and you responding, "You wouldn't know they were murdered unless there was a dead body first." Well, duh. You have to have a dead body before you can say that the death was caused by murder; and you have to have perceptions before you can say something caused those perceptions. How is this, exactly, a problem?

This isn't my argument, and it doesn't seem to work as an analogy either, so I don't have anything to say to it.

That is exactly wrong. Reason itself requires that we not be in an infinite regress. Infinite regresses are, by nature, irrational.

You can't prove an unfounded assertion by simply repeating it in a different way. Prove that infinite regresses are by nature irrational. In fact, I don't even know what you mean by an infinite regress in this instance, so you might want to clarify.

Not at all, because if that object does not exist then we are in an infinite regress. Now we certainly may be mistaken as to the identity of that object, but that object must still exist.

Since you have not yet demonstrated why an infinite regress is problematic, that "object" is not required to exist. I don't have a problem with the idea of an infinite regress; why is it such a stumbling block for you?

Thus, your view would be correct if my argument relied on our correctly identifying that object; but it is not important who or what that object is rather than the fact that that object must exist.

One of your original arguments was that by proving your own existence you also proved the law of identity. Therefore by your own argument, if you work out that the object exists you have identified it. So apparently your argument does rely on you correctly identifying that object, and thus you have just successfully proven that my view is correct. Congratulations.

A) I anticiapted your responding in this very manner and already dealt with it.

Please indicate where, since it is not obvious.

B) It is you who are dealing trickerly with semantics here. There's a reason the regularities that occur in nature were given the title "Natural law."

The phrase "natural law" does not refer to regularities that occur in nature - you are thinking of "laws of nature", which is a distinct concept.

The semantic distinction can be seen quite easily. Positive laws can be broken; if we accept your equivalence of the two types of law, then it should also be possible to break the laws of nature. We cannot break the laws of nature, therefore the two types of law are not equivalent. Similarly, just because positive law requires a lawgiver does not mean that laws of nature do - we simply lack a word to describe it otherwise.

Not at all. You mother was a conscious being. All beings that have consciousness come from other beings that have consciousness. There are no instances where we have consciousness coming from non-consciousness.

I am assuming that when you use the phrase "comes from" you are being deliberately imprecise in order to further your argument. I will assume that when you use the phrase "comes from" you are identifying a causal link between one consciousness and another.

You will agree that at the early stages of my development in the womb I was not conscious, but at some stage I became conscious. You will also agree that this consciousness was not magically transferred from my mother, father or anything else, and that their consciousness did not have any active role in creating my consciousness. Therefore there is no causal link between my consciousness and any antecedent consciousness.

If you wish a further refutation of your point: there is no evidence for any human consciousness coming from any nonhuman consciousness, therefore your object is human. There is no evidence for any human body coming from any nonhuman body, therefore your object has a human body. There is no evidence for any physical body coming from any nonphysical body, therefore your object has a physical body.

I could go on, but hopefully you get the point, which is that either your argument fails or that you have demonstrated that your specific God is not the object in question.

Except as I've demonstrated, my argument would work even if the world is exactly opposite of how we perceive it.

Sorry, but this is false. If your perceptions are the opposite of how the world is, and your perceptions tell you the world is logical, then the world is not logical. If the world is not logical, any logical arguments you derive from your perceptions cannot be applied to the world; and again, your argument fails.

On the other hand, if the world is exactly opposite of how we perceive it, then you have serious problems. Remember your initial premise:

1. Things are generally as I perceive them because God created the universe and He likewise created us to experience that universe, therefore He created us with the ability to perceive the universe as it actually is.

If you do not perceive the universe as it actually is, then you lose your premise; in addition, you also lose your specific God, who has clearly not created you with the ability you assert.

When interacting with some atheists (even those that claim not to be eliminative materialists), they seem to try to collapse logic into the material. Some have said things like "logic is hardwired into the brain" and "logic is a human construct" (although the second one seems to be confusing the formalizing of laws of logic with logic itself). What would be your response to these claims?

Paul said:---No, it isn't. According to what you've written in this thread, your first premise is:

"Things are generally as I perceive them because God created the universe and He likewise created us to experience that universe, therefore He created us with the ability to perceive the universe as it actually is."---

No, that was my explanation for the phenomenon. Indeed, it was my conclusion. My argument goes like this (and really anyone who read what I wrote should have been able to pick it up):

1. I perceive.

2. Therefore I exist.

3. My existence establishes the basic laws of logic (the law of identity and the law of non-contradiction).

4. Because logic is established, I can use it as a tool to probe further questions about my existence.

5. If I exist, either I must be self-existent or else my existence must be derrived from something else that is self-existent otherwise we're in an infinite regress of creation.

6. Whatever is self-existent is also eternal because it is outside the bounds of time. Indeed, I could argue time itself has no meaning without an object to exist (which is basically what most philosophers believe, viz. time didn't begin until the universe began, so there was no such thing as "before" the universe).

7. I extended this to several other attributes of God.

That was my argument. From this, which I left unstated, would be:

8. The God of the Bible most fits all the attributes that logic demands the self-existent, eternal, omnipotent, omnipresent object require.

9. The God of the Bible is said to have created me with the intention that I be able to actually experience the universe He created.

10. Therefore, I have reason to trust that what I perceive is valid.

So as you can see, even stripping it down as minimally as possible, I do not begin with my perceptions being accurate because God created me--that is the ten step in a highly abbreviated outline. What you quote was when I provided you a reason that I could accept my perceptions as being generally accurate. You cannot provide a reason why you should accept your perceptions as being generally accurate. That's the difference.

Paul said:---You can't prove an unfounded assertion by simply repeating it in a different way. Prove that infinite regresses are by nature irrational.---

There used to be a time that people were actually taught logic.

Paul said:---In fact, I don't even know what you mean by an infinite regress in this instance, so you might want to clarify.---

It's really not that difficult. It goes like this:

A. I exist.

B. My existence is derrived from something else that existed before I did.

C. The existence of B was derrived from something else that existed before B did.

D. The existence of C was derrived from something else that existed before C did.

...

n. The existence of n - 1 was derrived from something else that existed before n - 1 did.

That is the infinite regress I was talking about (it is infinite because n is infinite, under your theory).

If you cannot see how this is irrational then you have even more problems to deal with than I first imagined. But let me just give you two things to think about while you Google "infinite regress" and see how rational everyone else takes them to be...

1) In an infinite series, there is no starting point. That is, you can imagine it as a numberline. Let's just arbitrarily declare that my creation is the 0 point on the number line. That means we have to count down to negative infinity to find the starting point. You can start counting now, if you'd like, and let me know when you get there.

2) If time is object-dependent, as most believe, then this means that time itself is eternal. Which brings up a problem. If objects exist in an infinite regress, then time has existed for that entire process. That means time is infinite, which means it would take an infinite amount of time for us to get from the non-existent starting point to now.

Now would you care to explain how that would be rational? Can you explain how we can exist here and now without a start point, and how time would be the way it is as it is now without a start point for time either?

Paul said:---One of your original arguments was that by proving your own existence you also proved the law of identity. Therefore by your own argument, if you work out that the object exists you have identified it.---

No, because I may or may not be the self-existent object. My existence could be derrived existence. Therefore, I do not need to identify what the self-existent object is in order to know that the self-existent object must exist. Again, you're missing the boat here.

My existence demands that either I am self-existent or I came from some other source that is self-existent. I do not need to prove which of these possibilities actually did occur to know this is demanded by logic.

Paul said:---I am assuming that when you use the phrase "comes from" you are being deliberately imprecise in order to further your argument.---

I'm not being imprecise at all.

Paul said:---You will agree that at the early stages of my development in the womb I was not conscious, but at some stage I became conscious. You will also agree that this consciousness was not magically transferred from my mother, father or anything else, and that their consciousness did not have any active role in creating my consciousness. ---

You use of the word "magically" is perjorative.

Be that as it may, you will agree that your mother and your father were both conscious before they had you. So once again, we have consciousness begetting consciousness. What you do not have is an non-sentient object begetting a sentient object. That doesn't occur anywhere. Show me one example of it.

Paul said:---I could go on, but hopefully you get the point, which is that either your argument fails or that you have demonstrated that your specific God is not the object in question.---

But that aspect of my argument was the empiricist's argument anyway. I never said you could empirically prove the existence of God; rather, I showed that from the empiricial perspective you have no reason to believe that the object in question was anything but conscious.

I am not an empiricist, which is why I gave other arguments before adding that one on at the end. But if you're not an empiricist you can address the other aspects of my argument.

Paul said:---Sorry, but this is false. If your perceptions are the opposite of how the world is, and your perceptions tell you the world is logical, then the world is not logical.---

No, my perceptions do not tell me that the world is logically. The existence of my perceptions tells me that I exist, etc. But my perceptions could be flat out false. I could be a brain in a vat somewhere. It is possible that nothing I see actually exists, in which case that would be a violation of the law of non contradiction (IF it was based on my perceptions being accurate) for I would have something existing and not existing at the same time and in the same relationship.

Your counter here would be like saying a person who needs glasses is destroying logic because he doesn't see clearly. Or a color blind person destroys logic. Etc.

My view does not require what we see to be real. It could be entirely false, entirely hallucinated, and my argument would still stand.

First, I note the break between points 4 and 5 in your argument; there is no logical connection (ironically) and indeed they form different arguments. Second, following that, there is no logical link between your inital premise and the conclusion that you can trust your premise because of God. Third, we have established that up until point 4, we follow exactly the same path in grounding our rationality.

By your admission, taking that path - points 1-4 - does not involve or require belief in the existence of any god, which means that you have established that the grounds for rationality are atheistic, irrelevant of what you may later conclude about the existence of God. So once again, thank you for making my argument for me, although I'm not quite sure that was what you were planning.

You cannot provide a reason why you should accept your perceptions as being generally accurate.

No I cannot, but I never said that I could, or indeed that I needed to. I do not require a reason to trust my perceptions beyond the fact that there isn't any alternative, either philosophically or (more important) practically. This also gives me the skeptical grounding to deal with those times when my perceptions prove to be wrong. You, on the other hand, have no such defense, since if your perceptions prove to be wrong that means your God is untrustworthy.

If you cannot see how [an infinite regress] is irrational then you have even more problems to deal with than I first imagined. But let me just give you two things to think about while you Google "infinite regress" and see how rational everyone else takes them to be...

I did google infinite regress, and I found very little to support your position. The only people who considered the potential existence of an infinite regress in this discussion as "irrational" were Christian apologists. Imagine my surprise!

1) In an infinite series, there is no starting point. That is, you can imagine it as a numberline. Let's just arbitrarily declare that my creation is the 0 point on the number line. That means we have to count down to negative infinity to find the starting point. You can start counting now, if you'd like, and let me know when you get there.

This argument does not show that infinity is irrational. I also find it interesting that you do not accept the concept of infinity, but are perfectly happy with the concepts of zero and negative numbers.

2) If time is object-dependent, as most believe, then this means that time itself is eternal. Which brings up a problem. If objects exist in an infinite regress, then time has existed for that entire process. That means time is infinite, which means it would take an infinite amount of time for us to get from the non-existent starting point to now.

If time is a dimension in the same way as the three dimensions of space, then it comes into existence at the beginning of spacetime (or possibly shortly after). So time is not "eternal" in the usual senses of either an unlimited amount of time or existing outside time; it is part of the fabric of spacetime.

Furthermore, if time only begins as spacetime begins then we no longer face an endless chain of causation. Cause and effect is a function of time - if there is no time, there can be no cause and effect. So prior to time coming into existence, you do not need to posit a cause for anything. End of regress.

Now would you care to explain how that would be rational? Can you explain how we can exist here and now without a start point, and how time would be the way it is as it is now without a start point for time either?

Well, I've hopefully explained how it can be rational, although I predict you won't accept those explanations. My questions would be, why does the universe (in the broadest sense, as opposed to our localised spacetime) need a start point to exist?

No, because I may or may not be the self-existent object. My existence could be derrived existence. Therefore, I do not need to identify what the self-existent object is in order to know that the self-existent object must exist. Again, you're missing the boat here.

I am not "missing the boat". Your argument went as follows:

1. Establishing your own existence establishes your identity(1a. Establishing your own identity proves the law of identity.)2. [This can be generalised to state that] if you establish the existence of anything, you establish its identity.3. You claim to have established the existence of a self-existent object.4. Therefore by 2, you have established the identity of that self-existent object.

Be that as it may, you will agree that your mother and your father were both conscious before they had you. So once again, we have consciousness begetting consciousness. What you do not have is an non-sentient object begetting a sentient object. That doesn't occur anywhere. Show me one example of it.

Thank you for clarifying that you mean "beget, i.e. "to cause to exist". I'm assuming that you're a dualist, and that you don't believe that consciousness is purely a physical property. You can identify the causal link between my physical form and antecedent physical forms (i.e. my parents), but what exactly is the causal link between my consciousness and theirs?

As far as I can tell, their action is necessary but not sufficient for my consciousness to exist - and it seems a little difficult to say that something that such a relationship means that their consciousness "caused" mine to exist.

My view does not require what we see to be real. It could be entirely false, entirely hallucinated, and my argument would still stand.

The parts that are atheistic would still stand. The parts about the existence and (more specifically) the character of your God would fall down completely. The claim that God has created you "with the intention that I be able to actually experience the universe He created", for example, would be nonsensical, and would thus negate all your beliefs about God.

Paul said:---By your admission, taking that path - points 1-4 - does not involve or require belief in the existence of any god, which means that you have established that the grounds for rationality are atheistic, irrelevant of what you may later conclude about the existence of God. So once again, thank you for making my argument for me, although I'm not quite sure that was what you were planning.---

A) You are wrong when you say there is a break between point 4 and point 5, which is what causes you to make your error in the above.

B) I know that we supposedly agree up through point 4. But 4 cannot stand by itself. If I exist, then it is logically necessary that either I am self-existent or I am contingent. If I am contingent, then to avoid an infinite redux, at some point there must be something that is self-existent.

This is a logical necessity from the bare fact that I exist. I cannot exist in a vacuum. If you stop at "I exist, therefore logic is valid" then you have not completed your train of thought. You are breaking off in mid-sentence in order to avoid the conclusion that you do not wish to see.

But that conclusion is necessary. You cannot avoid it. If something--anything--exists, then there must exist something that is self-existent. This is logically necessary. The only way to avoid this is to jettison logic and embrace irrationality, which would prove my point right anyway.

Paul said:---No I cannot, but I never said that I could, or indeed that I needed to. I do not require a reason to trust my perceptions beyond the fact that there isn't any alternative, either philosophically or (more important) practically.---

Except your premise begins with your perceptions being generally accurate. If you cannot prove this, then you are indeed basing your reason on faith.

Paul said:---You, on the other hand, have no such defense, since if your perceptions prove to be wrong that means your God is untrustworthy.---

Not at all because of the effects of sin, and I already addressed this. Thank you for ignoring it again. It makes it much easier to debate when you don't listen to anything the other side says, don't it?

Paul said:---If time is a dimension in the same way as the three dimensions of space, then it comes into existence at the beginning of spacetime (or possibly shortly after). So time is not "eternal" in the usual senses of either an unlimited amount of time or existing outside time; it is part of the fabric of spacetime.

Furthermore, if time only begins as spacetime begins then we no longer face an endless chain of causation. Cause and effect is a function of time - if there is no time, there can be no cause and effect. So prior to time coming into existence, you do not need to posit a cause for anything. End of regress.---

Wasn't this my point? Now, Paul, you need to THINK here.

The universe comes into existence. There is a creation. We both agree on this point, because the creation must occur to keep us from having an infinite regress.

If the universe is created, then did it have a cause? It either did or it didn't. If it did, then whatever caused the universe must have preceeded the existence of the universe. If it preceeded the existence of the universe, then it is by definition outside the realm of time (i.e., eternal); and the fact that it exists prior to the universe existing still maintains the laws of logic.

But suppose there was no cause for the universe. In that case, you must accept the universe itself is self-existent--WHICH PROVES YET AGAIN THAT IF SOMETHING EXISTS, THERE MUST BE SOME SELF-EXISTENT OBJECT.

No matter how you look at this, you must end up with something being self-existent. Do you at least follow this much? Because it's rather pointless to continue if you can't even grasp this.

I'm going to clarify the terms that we're using, because imprecision clouds this discussion.

Existence, meaning all of everything (unsatisfactory definition, but you get the drift)Spacetime, meaning the spacetime continuum.Universe, meaning our visible slice of spacetime.

A) You are wrong when you say there is a break between point 4 and point 5, which is what causes you to make your error in the above.

Don't just assert it, demonstrate it.

B) I know that we supposedly agree up through point 4. But 4 cannot stand by itself. If I exist, then it is logically necessary that either I am self-existent or I am contingent. If I am contingent, then to avoid an infinite redux, at some point there must be something that is self-existent.

1. If point 4 can't stand by itself then you haven't made a logical argument in the way that you imagine.2. I don't have a problem with an infinite redux.3. I'm still waiting for you to show me why such a redux is "irrational" or provide any references that demonstrate why it's irrational (rather than just unsatisfactory for your argument).4. Existence (as defined above) is self-existent. Problem solved without the introduction of a mysterious third party.

If you stop at "I exist, therefore logic is valid" then you have not completed your train of thought. You are breaking off in mid-sentence in order to avoid the conclusion that you do not wish to see.

It's your train of thought, not mine; and I simply disagree with your unfounded assertion that this constitute "not completing a train of thought" (a mighty philosophical concept, might I add).

My conclusion is simply that if the universe if sufficiently orderly, then logic is a useful tool - and that's the end of my train of thought. I don't make sweeping statements like "logic is valid" - it may well not be in certain parts of existence, or it may not be at certain points in the spacetime continuum, such as immediately after a big bang or before a big crunch. It's useful as far as it goes, but logic is not the be-all and end-all of rational thinking, and rationality is not the be-all and end-all of thinking in general.

Except your premise begins with your perceptions being generally accurate. If you cannot prove this, then you are indeed basing your reason on faith.

I've explained that it's stronger than faith - there simply isn't any other way to act. This is a common sense argument, and I imagine you'll reject it on that basis.

Not at all because of the effects of sin, and I already addressed this.

So you're now arguing that your senses aren't accurate?

The universe comes into existence. There is a creation. We both agree on this point, because the creation must occur to keep us from having an infinite regress. If the universe is created, then did it have a cause? It either did or it didn't.

Just to clarify: I don't have a problem with an infinite regress, and while the universe must have a creation point, and spacetime almost definitely has a creation point, it is not the case that existence must have a creation point.

Since time begins with the development of spacetime, and cause-and-effect is a meaningful concept only in the context of time, then it makes no sense to talk about a cause of spacetime itself.

But suppose there was no cause for the universe. In that case, you must accept the universe itself is self-existent--WHICH PROVES YET AGAIN THAT IF SOMETHING EXISTS, THERE MUST BE SOME SELF-EXISTENT OBJECT.

Yes, and it's existence. You don't seem to like this answer, but I can't help that.

Paul said:---Existence, meaning all of everything (unsatisfactory definition, but you get the drift)---

Um, no. Not even close. Existence is an attribute of an object. (Missing this is the problem that Randians fall into, and you seem to as well with your comments later on.) Existence is not "all of everything" at all.

Furthermore, you have to tell us whether you are differentiating between physical existence and non-physical existence. For instance, I could say, "There is a red ball on my table." That red ball has physical existence, but unless you come over here the only existence you know about it is the non-physical existence you imagined it about.

Take one ball, a physical ball. It is an object. It has, as one of its attributes, physical existence. Take another ball, the one you imagine. It likewise is an object, but it has immaterial existence. It exists within your mind only, and nowhere else.

So if you want to get precise you have to go a bit further than you've gone so far. And we can also ask whether you agree with the idea that whatever is, is...or if you subscribe to whatever is, is becoming....

That is if you really want to go down this path and all...

Anyway, you said:---If point 4 can't stand by itself then you haven't made a logical argument in the way that you imagine.---

If point 4 was my conclusion you'd have a, er, point. But since point 4 was NOT my conclusion....

You said:---I don't have a problem with an infinite redux.---

Yes, we know you're irrational.

You said:---I'm still waiting for you to show me why such a redux is "irrational" or provide any references that demonstrate why it's irrational (rather than just unsatisfactory for your argument).---

I've already explained this. But you could look up "Turtles all the way down" for further information. Have at it. I really don't have time to squabble with you over things that are blindingly obvious.

You said:---Existence (as defined above) is self-existent. ---

Except it's not. Existence doesn't exist. Objects exist. Existence is not an object; existence is an attribute of an object.

If existence exists then where is it? Show me where this nebulous "existence" exists at.

It doesn't. Only objects exists.

So already you're mistaken. Existence cannot be self-existent because existence requires an object. It's like saying "life lives." It's a meaningless statement because only certain objects live (plants, animals); life does not exist in and of itself, it's a way of describing certain objects. Likewise, existence doesn't exist in and of itself, it's a way to describe certain objects.

You said:---Problem solved without the introduction of a mysterious third party.---

Except it doesn't solve the problem for you, because assuming I fell for your bluff and said that existence exists I would immediately ask "What other attributes does existence have? What must existence logically have in order for my own existence to exist?" And from that we'd move straight back into my original argument.

So you've not moved anywhere.

You said:---My conclusion is simply that if the universe if sufficiently orderly, then logic is a useful tool - and that's the end of my train of thought. I don't make sweeping statements like "logic is valid" - it may well not be in certain parts of existence, or it may not be at certain points in the spacetime continuum, such as immediately after a big bang or before a big crunch. It's useful as far as it goes, but logic is not the be-all and end-all of rational thinking, and rationality is not the be-all and end-all of thinking in general.---

Then why are you upset when I point out that atheists are irrational? Why are you even arguing here? Why not just admit: "Fine, atheism isn't as rational as theism; but we don't care. We don't believe rationality is the be-all and end-all of thinking"?

Well?

You said:---I've explained that it's stronger than faith - there simply isn't any other way to act.---

It doesn't matter whether there's "any other way to act" or not. It remains a faith-based argument.

And for the record, my argument has remained logic based. I've not had to assume anything, because I have direct access to my own perceptions. The rest of my argument flows from that. Therefore, there's no assumptions at all on my part, whereas your argument requires your assumption to be right.

And even if it was right, your argument would STILL logically lead you down the exact same path that my argument does. As I've stated, my argument is valid regardless of whether my perceptions are valid. Therefore, if they are valid (as they must be in for your argument to even begin) then my argument remains valid.

You said:---So you're now arguing that your senses aren't accurate?---

Are you completely boneheaded? Of course not. No one's senses are perfect.

They would have been without sin, but since sin exists no one sees, hears, tastes, smells, or feels perfectly. There are varying degrees, but none is perfect. And all have been tricked at one time or another. You ever see something that wasn't actually there? It was just a trick of the light and your brain went off on it? You ever hear someone call your name in a crowded room when no one said anything to you at all?

You said:---Just to clarify: I don't have a problem with an infinite regress, and while the universe must have a creation point, and spacetime almost definitely has a creation point, it is not the case that existence must have a creation point.---

Well since existence doesn't exist you're technically correct that it need not have a creation point.

However, since objects have the attribute of existence, then as soon as an object exists...there you have existence.

You said:---cause-and-effect is a meaningful concept only in the context of time---

No it's not time-based. Cause and effect is a meaningful LOGICAL concept. You can have an effect that is caused by something with no time-lapse between the cause and the effect. But you still must logically have the cause before the effect.

And just to clarify about logical order being the governing concept behind cause and effect, you can take relativity for another example.

Suppose we have someone who pulls the trigger of a gun. It causes a bullet to fire and kill someone. This temporal order is dependent upon the time scheme that one uses when evaluating the events. From a different observation position (say, a photon moving at the speed of light), no time elapsed between the pulling of the trigger and the firing of the bullet. There was no temporal "before." But there remains a logical "before" in place.

Theoretically, you could have an observer in such a position that his view of the events show the bullet firing before the trigger is pulled. Again, the temporal cause and effect would be altered--you'd have an effect causing the cause--but the logical cause and effect remains the same.

The logical "before" requires one to know more than the temporal "before." You must know all of the relevant temporal observations, whereas each individual temporal observation need only know it's own observation state.

Because we live at such low speeds (no where near the speed of light) in our common day life, the temporal before and the logical before are identical and we only need to know the temporal before to extrapolate the logical before. But when you throw in relativity and quantum mechanics, you have to account for the temporal states of the very fast, the very small, the very large, and the very heavy. It is because people are focused on the temporal idea of "before" that they believe quantum mechanics has effects causing causes, when if you look at the logical "before" it still remains causes causing effects.

1. Things are generally as you perceive them.2. Your reason for agreeing with this statement is because God created the universe and He likewise created us to experience that universe, therefore He created us with the ability to perceive the universe as it actually is.

Any conclusions about God or the universe are based on your prior acceptance of the initial premise. Claiming those conclusions are the reason why you initially asserted that premise creates a circular argument. If you genuinely don't see that, then there is no point in further discussion.

Your reason for agreeing with the initial premise is solely that you need to agree with it in order to move any further in your argument. Any conclusions about God or the universe may validate that premise, but they were not your original reason for believing it. Thus the grounds for rationality are atheistic.

Um, no. Not even close. Existence is an attribute of an object. (Missing this is the problem that Randians fall into, and you seem to as well with your comments later on.) Existence is not "all of everything" at all.

You misunderstand. I am simply using the phrase "existence" as a placeholder for a potentially wider reference than spacetime - not a description of something, but a something. As I said, it's not an entirely satisfactory phrase. As a result, everything you say subsequently about my use of the word "existence" is therefore irrelevant. I would request that you read what I wrote again with this definition of "existence" in mind - think of it as existence* if it helps.

Yes, we know you're irrational.

You keep asserting that, but have yet to demonstrate it. Earlier you suggested that I google "infinite regression" to see how irrational I was being. I did, and couldn't find anything that suggested any such thing. If there are so many references to how irrational the notion is, then I am surprised that you haven't provided any - or indeed provided an actual argument.

I've already explained this. But you could look up "Turtles all the way down" for further information. Have at it. I really don't have time to squabble with you over things that are blindingly obvious.

Then why are you upset when I point out that atheists are irrational? Why are you even arguing here? Why not just admit: "Fine, atheism isn't as rational as theism; but we don't care. We don't believe rationality is the be-all and end-all of thinking"?

1. I'm not "upset" (and I have no idea why you think I am).2. It's not that atheists are irrational, it's that humans can be irrational.3. I am arguing here because you're wrong about the grounding of rationality.4. I don't admit that because it's not what I believe.

It doesn't matter whether there's "any other way to act" or not. It remains a faith-based argument.

If this is true, then you apparently believe that breathing is a faith-based argument. This is clearly nonsense.

Cause and effect is a meaningful LOGICAL concept. You can have an effect that is caused by something with no time-lapse between the cause and the effect. But you still must logically have the cause before the effect.

1. Give a single example of an effect with no time-lapse between the cause and effect.

2. You used the word "before" in the third sentence. "Before" is solely temporal - it has no meaning outside the flow of time. Your very language betrays you.

Suppose we have someone who pulls the trigger of a gun. It causes a bullet to fire and kill someone. This temporal order is dependent upon the time scheme that one uses when evaluating the events. From a different observation position (say, a photon moving at the speed of light), no time elapsed between the pulling of the trigger and the firing of the bullet. There was no temporal "before." But there remains a logical "before" in place.

False (to the best of my knowledge). An effect is always within the light cone of the cause, irrelevant of an observer's position or what they observe. It remains true that the logical demonstration of causality is entirely reliant on the temporal occurence of causality.

I'm not sure you have a clue what you're talking about in the rest of that comment, but it sure was funny to watch.

1. Things are generally as you perceive them.2. Your reason for agreeing with this statement is because God created the universe and He likewise created us to experience that universe, therefore He created us with the ability to perceive the universe as it actually is.

Any conclusions about God or the universe are based on your prior acceptance of the initial premise.---

Okay, you have no desire to even attempt to deal with anything I've written. I've been over this with you before already, Paul. Read what I've actually written.

WHAT YOU CLAIM IS MY INITIAL PREMISE IS NOT MY INITIAL PREMISE. IT NEVER HAS BEEN. ONLY IN YOUR MIND HAS IT EVER BEEN, BECAUSE YOU DON'T WANT TO DEAL WITH THE ACTUAL ARGUMENT.

I've mentioned this repeatedly. I've corrected you repeatedly. To no avail. You're obviously not interested in dialogue.

Purely for the sake of mopping up, you said:---Give a single example of an effect with no time-lapse between the cause and effect.---

Read what I wrote on Relativity.

You said:---You used the word "before" in the third sentence. "Before" is solely temporal - it has no meaning outside the flow of time.---

False. There is a logical order of precedence. There is a logical "before" and "after." Again, read what I wrote. I specifically defined the "before" as a logical "before" not a temporal "before." That you cannot grasp this is your problem, not mine.

You said:---An effect is always within the light cone of the cause, irrelevant of an observer's position or what they observe.---

Again, read what I wrote on Relativity. Anyone who understands that there's no such thing as "simultaneous" will easily see that there's no such thing as an independent "before" or "after" in a temporal sense. If you don't believe me, Einstein wrote a nice book on it. It's called "Relativity." Check it out sometime. Read it. Try to learn something.

You could also imagine this scenario: Suppose I have a machine that causes a beam of light to appear two seconds previous to the pressing of hte button. The temporal effect occurs before the cause; but the logical cause of the beam of light was the pressing of the button after the beam of light appeared.

So are you going to actually deal with my argument or are you continually going to misrepresent it to try to make me say something I'm not? Are you going to actually think about the consequences of existence, or are you just going to continue in your philosophical ignorance? As for me, it's becoming quite clear we're we'll past the point of diminishing returns here. I simply don't have enough time to waste on those who have no interested in following a conversation.

WHAT YOU CLAIM IS MY INITIAL PREMISE IS NOT MY INITIAL PREMISE. IT NEVER HAS BEEN. ONLY IN YOUR MIND HAS IT EVER BEEN, BECAUSE YOU DON'T WANT TO DEAL WITH THE ACTUAL ARGUMENT.

In response to my point "1. Things are generally as I perceive them", you wrote that you agreed with this premise. I take your point that you need an additional 10 steps of reasoning to reach that premise, and that you need to introduce an unnecessary third party, but that doesn't invalidate the fact that I can take it as my premise without those 10 steps simply as a brute fact.

One thing that is interesting, and that you don't seem to have noticed, is that even on your own terms you've argued that your rationality is based on entirely atheistic grounds. You argue that your mere existence establishes the laws of logic, and and that your rationality is grounded in those laws. So by point 4 you have established your rationality with no reference to God whatsoever, which sounds fairly atheistic to me.

Of course, I don't subscribe to your argument. Points 1-4 appear to make sense, although your fetish for "logic" is puzzling. You claim to have established the "laws of logic" even though you have only identified two of them (and possibly tenuously); point 5 depends on whether you agree that an infinite regress is a) problematic and b) meaningful prior to the appearance of spacetime; point 6 conflates eternal and infinite in order to avoid that problem; I don't believe that the high package in point 7 makes particularly forceful arguments about the characteristics of the "self-existent object"; and points 8-10 are simply wishful thinking without any logic behind them to attach them to your particular God, as opposed to any other God one might like to posit.

False. There is a logical order of precedence. There is a logical "before" and "after." Again, read what I wrote. I specifically defined the "before" as a logical "before" not a temporal "before." That you cannot grasp this is your problem, not mine.

Just because you say something, does not make it so. You cannot use the word "before" without involving time; it's not "my problem", it's just the way that it is. Explain specifically how a logical before works without a temporal before - and not with the example that you gave (and I address below), which is not an accurate description of relativity.

Again, read what I wrote on Relativity. Anyone who understands that there's no such thing as "simultaneous" will easily see that there's no such thing as an independent "before" or "after" in a temporal sense. If you don't believe me, Einstein wrote a nice book on it. It's called "Relativity." Check it out sometime. Read it. Try to learn something.

In a way I suppose it's good that you've resorted to being patronising, since it helps people to see exactly what sort of person you are. It's not the best witness for your faith - but that's your lookout, not mine.

"Events which are simultaneous with reference to the embankment are not simultaneous with respect to the train, and vice versa (relativity of simultaneity). Every reference-body (co-ordinate system) has its own particular time; unless we are told the reference-body to which the statement of time refers, there is no meaning in a statement of the time of an event." (ch.9)

The point of relativity is that the passage of time is relative, not that the passage of time is compromised. There is nothing in relativity that removes the principle of cause and effect; the relativity of simultaneity only establishes that different viewpoints will have different timeframes, and not that they will magically see time running backwards. Neither does the existence of alternative viewpoints alter the temporal cause-and-effect within the light cone of a particular chain of events, which is what is under discussion here.

You could also imagine this scenario: Suppose I have a machine that causes a beam of light to appear two seconds previous to the pressing of hte button. The temporal effect occurs before the cause; but the logical cause of the beam of light was the pressing of the button after the beam of light appeared.

Well, you could imagine such a scenario but it is highly unlikely to exist in the real world - because it's against the laws of physics. In order for the light beam to appear two seconds before the button is pressed, the signal from the button would have to travel faster than the speed of light, irrelevant of what your observation point was - which of course is not possible.

If it was possible to build such a machine, it would violate the principle of causality - which in turn would destroy your argument. So you appear to be arguing a scenario that destroys the basis of your beliefs.

So are you going to actually deal with my argument or are you continually going to misrepresent it to try to make me say something I'm not? Are you going to actually think about the consequences of existence, or are you just going to continue in your philosophical ignorance? As for me, it's becoming quite clear we're we'll past the point of diminishing returns here. I simply don't have enough time to waste on those who have no interested in following a conversation.

I have tried to deal with each point of your verbose argument; just because you don't like my answers and don't have an adequate reply does not mean that I am not. If you want to end this discussion, fine. However I would note that every presuppositional apologist on the internet eventually reaches this point. The "I don't have enough time to waste" gambit seems to be second only to the "it's blindingly obvious" move.

Oh well. I don't suppose I'll ever get an explanation from you of why an infinite regress is irrational; but that's largely because it isn't, and as a result you don't have any such explanation.

p.s. I freely admit that I may be wrong about my interpretation of relativity, since I'm no expert. However the claims that you are making fly in the face of what I understand the general theory of relativity to state, and nothing I can find on the web supports what you are saying - including Einstein's work itself.

Paul said:---In response to my point "1. Things are generally as I perceive them", you wrote that you agreed with this premise. I take your point that you need an additional 10 steps of reasoning to reach that premise, and that you need to introduce an unnecessary third party, but that doesn't invalidate the fact that I can take it as my premise without those 10 steps simply as a brute fact.---

No you can't. This would be like going into a trial and saying, "The prosecution is going to conclude after a lengthy argument that the defendant is guilty, so I can simply accept that conclusion as a brute fact." How is that justice?

And you can't simply accept that what you perceive is valid as a brute fact. It doesn't work that way. You have to argue and reason for your view.

Again, anyone with half a brain can read our two exchanges here and see that I've provided the grounds for rationality whereas you begin with rationality based on a whim of faith. All one needs to thwart your view is assert, as a brute fact, that the Matrix is real and we're all brains in vat, and that our perceptions are delusions sent to keep us in line. You have no way of maintaining rationality if such a view is true, and you have no way of combatting the brain in a vat scenario. You're impotent because all you have is the bare assertion that you're right, whereas I have reason.

You said:---One thing that is interesting, and that you don't seem to have noticed, is that even on your own terms you've argued that your rationality is based on entirely atheistic grounds. You argue that your mere existence establishes the laws of logic, and and that your rationality is grounded in those laws. So by point 4 you have established your rationality with no reference to God whatsoever, which sounds fairly atheistic to me.---

Only because you're a complete idiot. I've also argued that it is impossible for point 4 to stand alone. Again, we're covering the same ground and you're still refusing to listen. You're not reading anything I've said.

That my existence is enough to form the grounds of logic does not mean my existence is in a vacuum. It doesn't mean that we suddenly cut off reason at that point. That would be like saying, "My computer works when I plug it in; therefore I don't need to know what happens inside the box. It is sufficient to claim that electricity makes it function."

If you want to be a moron, be my guest. But don't expect me to turn off my brain and skip down the path with you.

You said:---You claim to have established the "laws of logic" even though you have only identified two of them (and possibly tenuously)---

There's nothing tenuous about them, and the other laws of logic flow easily enough from the law of identity and the law of non-contradiction. Take the unction against circular reasoning, for example. Circular reasoning is invalid because you can use it to "prove" both sides of a contradiction, which violates LNC (and LNC is really just the inverse of Identity anyway).

All logic is based on identity and LNC.

You said:---point 5 depends on whether you agree that an infinite regress is a) problematic and b) meaningful prior to the appearance of spacetime---

Again, you wish to argue for an infinite redux as rational. Have at it. Joust your windmills. You're still irrational.

You said:---point 6 conflates eternal and infinite in order to avoid that problem---

Not it doesn't. There's a vast difference between eternal (outside time) and infinite. Instead of making up stuff, why don't you pay attention to what I really said, which is that if a physical object exists in an infinite redux then it has to exist in an infinite amount of time too. It's not that difficult.

But it's still clear you don't want to deal with what I actually said. Just make up your own universe.

You said:---I don't believe that the high package in point 7 makes particularly forceful arguments about the characteristics of the "self-existent object"---

I don't believe you've shown sufficent care with logic for me to concern myself with what you believe.

You said:---You cannot use the word "before" without involving time---

Except I did, and I explained my usage of it. You don't seem to get out much. You obviously don't read much philosophy either.

You said:---Explain specifically how a logical before works without a temporal before ---

I already did. And you simply excluding by fiat my example doesn't help you any.

A logical before simply means that logically A causes B. It has no bearing on temporal, except insofar as in our usual frame of reference logical befores are almost always temporal befores. But since we're dealing with what must logically occur before time itself is founded, then we are stuck with only the logical before. There is no temporal before when there is no time; there is only logical precedence.

You said:---There is nothing in relativity that removes the principle of cause and effect; the relativity of simultaneity only establishes that different viewpoints will have different timeframes, and not that they will magically see time running backwards---

A) I never said anything about time running backwards.

B) I agree that relativity does not compromise cause and effect BECAUSE CAUSE AND EFFECT ARE LOGICALLY LINKED, NOT TEMPORALLY LINKED.

Get it through your head.

You said:---Well, you could imagine such a scenario but it is highly unlikely to exist in the real world---

What is the real world? And how do you know what is likely in it? You've based your examiniation of it on the reality of your perceptions, which is a faith-based concept.

You also fully miss the importance of a thought expirement. The point wasn't to echo something that was real, it was to point out that cause and effect are logically linked, not temporally linked. That you cannot grasp this speaks wonders to your lack of intelligence.

You said:---I freely admit that I may be wrong about my interpretation of relativity, since I'm no expert. ---

That is blindingly obvious.

You said:---However the claims that you are making fly in the face of what I understand the general theory of relativity to state, and nothing I can find on the web supports what you are saying - including Einstein's work itself.---

Expand your search beyond the Free Thought Wiki and you'll be amazed at what you discover.

And since you claim presuppositionals are pulling a trick here, I suppose I must point out the atheist trick of repeating oft-debunked assertions as if they haven't been debunked, not interacting with anything presented, and hoping you can cause enough chaos to escape in the smoke.

You want me to accept your perceptions are valid without providing a reason for it; you want to believe in infinite reduxes as non-problematic; you don't hold to rationality as the be-all and end-all of thinking. Yet you also want to claim that atheism is rational and theism is irrational. This is pure lunacy.

And if you think I'm being pompous, I'll just say I'd rather be pompous than a fool like you. I'd rather be arrogantly right than meekly wrong. The reality, however, is that I've tried to reason with you, but you're unreasonable. I'm not being arrogant or pompous at all; I'm dealing with a fool and have to stoop to his level in the hopes that he might grasp a few grains of truth. If that offends you, I'm sure you'll find a way to cope eventually.

This would be like going into a trial and saying, "The prosecution is going to conclude after a lengthy argument that the defendant is guilty, so I can simply accept that conclusion as a brute fact."

No. This would be like going into a trial, holding up a knife and saying "This is a knife." With this brute fact in hand you could then demonstrate that the knife had been used to kill the victim and belonged to the accused; while you would presumably be sitting at the defense table shouting "Prove it's a knife!" (You would be ignored.)

And you can't simply accept that what you perceive is valid as a brute fact. It doesn't work that way. You have to argue and reason for your view.

I'm not sure that you understand what a brute fact is. As I said before, if you believe that the assumption that my perceptions are real is a faith statement, then you must also believe that breathing is a faith statement. The reality is that the alternative belief while possible to hold is not possible to practice, and so one proceeds as if one's perceptions are accurate. This is what I mean by brute fact in this context.

Again, anyone with half a brain can read our two exchanges here and see that I've provided the grounds for rationality whereas you begin with rationality based on a whim of faith.

It's fascinating to see a Christian so dismissive of faith. In your view, should all those Christians who have faith in God are indulging in whims and should be condemned for being irrational? That seems a little harsh.

All one needs to thwart your view is assert, as a brute fact, that the Matrix is real and we're all brains in vat, and that our perceptions are delusions sent to keep us in line. You have no way of maintaining rationality if such a view is true, and you have no way of combatting the brain in a vat scenario. You're impotent because all you have is the bare assertion that you're right, whereas I have reason.

In practical terms, Peter, what if the Matrix is real? In practical terms, what if we are brains in a vat? What would you do differently if either of those statements were true? More pertinently, how would it affect the subsequent steps in my argument?

Of course, if new evidence reaches my perception revealing that I am in the Matrix or a brain in a vat, then my perceptions will allow me to adjust to this new framework. The point is that it will still be in the framework of my perception, and I'll still have to act on those perceptions.

I've also argued that it is impossible for point 4 to stand alone.

And yet, it does.

It doesn't mean that we suddenly cut off reason at that point.

I didn't say that we cut off reason at that point. It's simply that every point after that depends on the conclusions you draw from your reason, so that using conclusions based point 4 to support point 4 will just give you a circular argument.

A logical before simply means that logically A causes B. It has no bearing on temporal, except insofar as in our usual frame of reference logical befores are almost always temporal befores. But since we're dealing with what must logically occur before time itself is founded, then we are stuck with only the logical before. There is no temporal before when there is no time; there is only logical precedence.

I will ask you again: give me a single real-world example of a logical before that is not based on a temporal before. [Note: I see you have posted an attempt. I'll move on to that when I have a chance, but it appears that Jen H has already pointed to your mistake, and that causality is intact.]

B) I agree that relativity does not compromise cause and effect BECAUSE CAUSE AND EFFECT ARE LOGICALLY LINKED, NOT TEMPORALLY LINKED. You also fully miss the importance of a thought expirement. The point wasn't to echo something that was real, it was to point out that cause and effect are logically linked, not temporally linked.

Thought experiments are perfectly valid, but not if they violate basic principles. Here, let me try. Suppose you have a person in front of you who is that person and another person at the same time. This thought experiment clearly disproves the law of identity!

Except it doesn't, of course, because I haven't explained by what mechanism somebody could be somebody else at the same time as themselves. In the same way, you haven't explained by what mechanism an effect could happen before a cause - you've just described it as if it was its own proof.

You then attempt to justify this by referring to relativity - but relativity expressly prohibits effect preceding cause. So what you are saying is that your argument relies on the laws of physics not operating; but your own logic relies on the laws of physics operating to provide you with

Expand your search beyond the Free Thought Wiki and you'll be amazed at what you discover.

I've never heard of the Free Thought Wiki, I'm afraid. I'm referring to Einstein's text Relativity, plus the various popular science books that I've read over the years. I was definitely amazed at what I discovered, although everything I read leads me to believe that what you're describing is not possible.

You want me to accept your perceptions are valid without providing a reason for it; you want to believe in infinite reduxes as non-problematic; you don't hold to rationality as the be-all and end-all of thinking. Yet you also want to claim that atheism is rational and theism is irrational. This is pure lunacy.

1. The reason is that it is impossible to act otherwise - a brute fact, as I have explained.2. I didn't say that infinite reduxes weren't problematic, I said that they weren't irrational.3. Rationality clearly isn't the be-all and end-all of thinking, unless you believe that people are never irrational.4. I do not believe that theism is irrational. What I believe is that the grounds for rationality has nothing to do with your God.5. This is not lunacy. This is Sparta.

And if you think I'm being pompous, I'll just say I'd rather be pompous than a fool like you. I'd rather be arrogantly right than meekly wrong.

It's interesting that you think that other people might find you pompous and arrogant - does that happen a lot?